11 disabled foster kids made to sleep in cages instead of be

Post Reply New Topic

If they cant prove that lock them in cages... if they can prove that lock the shrink into cages with them .

Ok, at the risk of incurring forumly wrath...

This is bad? I mean, it does sound bad, especially the not having blankets and pillows and stuff. Still, something isn't quite adding up. Most of these kids were Autistic? Funny kind of Autie that can be shoved in a cage that small and kept there. I suppose I don't know a whole heap of Autistic kids, but the kids I do know could no more be contained by a cage than they could decide to fly. I should imagine the task to be as odious as attempting to bathe a cat!

And er... rumour is they were well adjusted, well fed, happy kids? Again, something isn't making sense there. Kids can scream blue murder, and screaming is contagious. I have trouble believing that none of the neighbours could hear the combined screams of eleven children.

Finally, perhaps the parents genuinely thought it was the best way of keeping the kids from hurting one another? They didn't exactly lock the cages... Plus, and you're gonna hate me for this, it is possible that the kids actually felt safe in the cages. Temple Grandin modified a cattle press because she felt safe in the enclosed space, and I can imagine that it is possible for the kids to feel safe in their cages. Who knows, the lack of blankets for some could have also been a tactile decision.

Ok, now for the explanation of why I'm doing this. I'm not trying to just stir up trouble, really I'm not. I just found myself reading the article and, in typical, gullible Annelise fashion, thinking 'oh, the parents said they didn't mean to do the wrong thing, they are probably nice people'. Certainly I don't like the idea of locking kids up in tiny cages and treating them like animals. However, as a kid, I grew up with being locked in my room and restrained by my parents, as was recommended by a specialist. In a house of eleven kids, this isn't practical.

Ack... I think I'm just feeling guilty for sort of believing the innocent side of it from what the parents said... I think I'll stick with the fact that these were apparently happy kids. Their cages were painted in bright colours, they didn't spend all their time in there... is it possible that the parents recognised that having a space all of their own was important, and didn't have enough bedrooms? The media can lie, but the behaviour of abused children doesn't...

If you dont have enough rooms to accomodate 11 children then dont foster them, simple as that.

True, but is it possible that the alternatives for those kids were far worse? Sometimes it is less a case of choosing good from bad but rather of choosing bad from worse...

That might be so, maybe the local "care" home is worse but do you think that's what the foster parents were thinking or was it because the more children they have the more money the state pays them. Maybe i read too much Charles Dickens and am too much of a cynic.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned I'd posted this already a couple threads down:

http://wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name ... pic&t=5731